Depending on where the threat occurred, the S.O. may have gotten it on cameras--they're all over the new court building, including the exterior.

The crosswalk, you stand a chance of it having been recorded. If you notified a deputy right away, you MAY be able to have a copy of the relevant footage added to any report.
That would certainly help bolster your side in applying for a CCW or getting an RO from the Court.

Good luck.

Excellent point that I had not previously considered. Thank you for bringing that up.

__________________Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton

If memory serves (it's been over 2 years since I was in touch with the Court Services Division), the server stores footage for 30 or 60 days unless it's otherwise bookmarked or saved.
So I'd suggest checking into that ASAP.

Of course, the whole thing could have been helped if the Family Law bailiff was switched-on enough to see potential problems and radio to the front door and have the Deputy there keep an eye on things (assuming, of course, there were indications in the courtroom)...Being a Deputy in the courts takes a certain type, and when I was last involved there (early 2011), then-CDR Buttrey was not exactly pushing to hire that sort, nor was that type being put into Courts.
But that's a whole different category of gripe from my end.

__________________
"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine."
-Erwin Rommel

I was standing out front, conferring with my attorney. To my knowledge, he didn't give me the stink-eye in the court room, and the baliff has only been in the courtroom about a week. After our hearing was over, we spoke outside, and he walked past us. There was no acknowledgement of each other, he just kept walking. About the time he reached the crosswalk, my attorney and I parted ways, and she walked off in the opposite direction. He looked over his shoulder as I started toward the crosswalk, stopped, then tooka few steps back toward me, and iterated his threat(s) toward me. I stopped walking, put my hands up to about shoulder level, palms out in the universal "I don't want any trouble" pose and asked him if there was a problem that we needed to get the deputy to resolve. He continued to curse and issue threats, so I walked back into the court house, asked for a deputy to walk me to my car, but I didn't see where he went.

__________________Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton

[Grand Jury] Members investigated a complaint over the way the Sheriff's Department issues permits to people seeking the right to carry concealed weapons. Over a nine-month period reviewed by the grand jury, the department received 81 applications. Of those, 29 were approved.

Grand jurors found "inconsistencies with regard to which applications were approved, and which were denied."

Though it found the successful applicants were typically citizens with good moral character and with good cause, some of them had experienced minor brushes with the law and several people who were denied seemed to be deserving. The grand jury recommended the Sheriff's Department review its policies for granting concealed weapons permits and take a second look at the denied applications for possible changes

[Grand Jury] Members investigated a complaint over the way the Sheriff's Department issues permits to people seeking the right to carry concealed weapons. Over a nine-month period reviewed by the grand jury, the department received 81 applications. Of those, 29 were approved.

Grand jurors found "inconsistencies with regard to which applications were approved, and which were denied."

Though it found the successful applicants were typically citizens with good moral character and with good cause, some of them had experienced minor brushes with the law and several people who were denied seemed to be deserving. The grand jury recommended the Sheriff's Department review its policies for granting concealed weapons permits and take a second look at the denied applications for possible changes

I predict no changes in the current issuing scheme.

__________________Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton

Sadly, you're probably right. Given the attitude of "Privilege, not a right" coming from the head of the agency, I too don't see much change happening unless the GJ or other significant entity comes right out and instructs them (with force of law or at least penalty) to amend the issuing scheme.

__________________
"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine."
-Erwin Rommel

It would be interesting to see the list of CCW/LTC holders as well as the denied list. I would put money on it that everyone on the issued list is somehow connected to Pazin and the denied list are not.

Someone should FOIA that list...after all, it's very poigniantly stated in the application that there is no right/expectation of privacy if someone asks for the list of permit holders.

__________________Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton

Brandon or Gene, I posted this in the Facebook Cal Guns group...but I spoke with Josette Torres this morning regarding my recently denied CCW application. She informed me that there is a 6 month waiting period to re-apply. I left a message for Deputy Obayashi regarding my CCW application denial to see if he confirms that. I also found out Obayashi has a law license and is considered to be MCSO's "legal advisor".

__________________Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton

Brandon or Gene, I posted this in the Facebook Cal Guns group...but I spoke with Josette Torres this morning regarding my recently denied CCW application. She informed me that there is a 6 month waiting period to re-apply. I left a message for Deputy Obayashi regarding my CCW application denial to see if he confirms that. I also found out Obayashi has a law license and is considered to be MCSO's "legal advisor".

Yep. He's the Deputy/Lawyer.
There's some...interesting scuttlebutt about him in the local legal community.

Edit: At least, that's the impression I got from a now-no-longer-local lawyer. Not saying I was privy to the details. And it's been a long time since I talked to said lawyer (about 3 or 4 years, now) so that might have been a temporary or then-current matter only.

__________________
"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine."
-Erwin Rommel

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche

Brandon or Gene, I posted this in the Facebook Cal Guns group...but I spoke with Josette Torres this morning regarding my recently denied CCW application. She informed me that there is a 6 month waiting period to re-apply. I left a message for Deputy Obayashi regarding my CCW application denial to see if he confirms that. I also found out Obayashi has a law license and is considered to be MCSO's "legal advisor".

A previous Grand Jury blasted Paizin for having Obayashi on the payroll as a deputy doing legal opinions when taxpayers already pay for the County Counsel's office. Elected official Paizin thumbed his nose at the Grand Jury. "You have no power here!"

MERCED COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT: CCW PROGRAM SUMMARY The 2012-2013 Merced County Civil Grand Jury investigated nine months of License to Carry a Concealed Weapon (CCW) applications, attached police reports, and background checks. A Sheriff’s deputy is assigned to review all applications and makes a recommendation. The Sheriff makes the final decision on who receives and who is denied a CCW.
The Civil Grand Jury noticed inconsistencies with regard to which applications were approved, and which were denied. Applicants that received a CCW were typically citizens of good moral character and with good cause to receive a CCW. A majority of applicants who were denied had similar cause and victim incident history as applicants who received permits. Why these applicants were granted a permit over someone with similar good cause and victim incident history? Were they shown favoritism? The Sheriff’s Department should review their procedures to ensure that acceptance and denial of applications are given an equal/fair process. There needs to be consistent criteria for law-abiding citizens to receive a CCW fairly. With higher crime19 (FBI Crime Statistics, 2010 to 2011, 8% increase in Merced County) and fewer officers, 9-1-1 response time is slower, leaving individuals at higher risk. 19 FBI Crime Statistics, 2010, 2011. See attached documents. The Sheriff’s Department should review all denied applications from July 16, 2012 through April 16, 2013, which had similar good cause and victim incident history as approved applications for reconsideration. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The 2012-2013 Merced County Civil Grand Jury received a complaint regarding a denied CCW application. The Civil Grand Jury decided to investigate the Merced County Sheriff’s Department’s CCW permit program to ensure that CCW permits were being granted on a fair and consistent basis. METHODOLOGY The 2012-2013 Merced County Civil Grand Jury uses the investigation method of triangulation, which involves research, observation, and interviews. RESEARCH The Civil Grand Jury reviewed websites and documents received from various sources. These can be viewed at the end of the report in the footnote section. 68 OBSERVATION During the investigation, the Civil Grand Jury reviewed nine months of approved and denied CCW applications at the Sheriff’s office. There were eighty-one applications from July 16, 2012 to April 16, 2013. INTERVIEWS The Civil Grand Jury interviewed the Merced County Sheriff, asked CCW application process questions to Sheriff personnel and interviewed an applicant who was denied a CCW permit. DISCUSSION 1) APPLICATION PROCESS AND FEES The application form created by the California Department of Justice is a standardized application used by all counties in the State of California. The following is the process:  Download the application online on the Sheriff’s website20 or pick one up in the office for ten dollars.  Submit the application as well as a fingerprint Livescan ($113)  Background check with the Department of Justice (DOJ) as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  Letter approving or denying application is received from the Sheriff.  If approved applicant must pay an additional forty dollars.  Pay to take a CCW class (fees vary upon instructor and number of weapons).  Do a live fire qualification course with the weapons that you choose to carry (up to three). 20 Merced County Sheriff CCW Application, http://www.co.merced.ca.us/documents/Sheriff's%20Department/CCWAPP_1.PDF Renewal is every two years and the fees are twenty-five dollars for the Sheriff’s Department and fifty-two dollars for the DOJ. To renew, one must re-qualify with their weapons and pay the fees.
Out of fifty states, California is one of eight that is a "may-issue" or "right-restricted" state. In California, this means that each County Sheriff has the authority to decide how to enforce the state standardized criteria used for issuing permits. This authority 69 is granted to the Sheriff by California Penal Code §12050. Most states (thirty-six) are "shall-issue." This means that if you are a law-abiding citizen, and can pass the course, you shall be issued a CCW. Two states have laws where the issuing authority has partial discretion over the CCW process, but generally grants to law-abiding citizens. Four states require no permit to carry concealed, and one state, Illinois, does not allow CCW at all, according to the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.21 21 National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/gun-law-map.aspx?altTemplate=ilaPrintGunLawMap&title=Right %20To%20Carry%20Laws 2) INCONSISTENCIES The 2012-2013 Merced County Civil Grand Jury investigated nine months of applications and noticed inconsistencies with regard to which applications were approved, and which were denied. Applicants that received a CCW were typically citizens with good moral character and with good cause to receive a CCW. A majority of applicants that were denied had similar cause and victim incident history as those who received permits. The reviewing deputy recommended to the Sheriff that most applications be denied due to inadequate "good cause" and/or deficient "victim incident history." The application instructs the applicant to explain good cause for a CCW:
"If the CCW license is desired for self-protection, the protection of others, or for the protection of large sums of money, or valuable property, you are required to explain and provide good cause for issuance of the license. For example, has your life or property been threatened or jeopardized? Explain incidents and include dates, times, locations, and names of police agencies to which these incidents were reported."

__________________Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.

Miranda vs. Arizona

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes...

A) APPROVED APPLICATIONS Out of the eighty-one applications over the nine month period, there were a total of twenty-nine approved applications (36% approval rate) to grant permits. Six of the approved applications were automatically granted to judicial employees or spouse of a judicial employee (21% of those approved). The general public approval rate was 28%.
The Civil Grand Jury noted several applications that had been determined to be inadequate by the reviewing officer were later approved by the Sheriff.
There were three approved applications from individuals who had committed crimes including a misdemeanor driving under the influence (DUI), trespassing, and other misdemeanors. These applicants had no victim incident history, were of satisfactory mental state, but had only self-defense listed as their good cause. 70 Out of twenty-nine approved applications, withholding the six automatically granted permits, only nine (39%) had both documented incidents, and detailed good cause more than just self-defense.
Only four females out of the thirteen that requested a CCW permit were granted. Three were automatically granted and the fourth was a spouse of a law enforcement officer. The remaining nine denied female applicants included: business owners, police dispatchers, an animal control officer, physician’s assistant, church secretary and a farmer. Many of the denied women had good cause such as carrying large sums of cash, threats from work, checking fields in remote areas with no cell service, working alone after dark, and collecting rent at rental properties. Some of these also had incident history such as threats from patients, victims of domestic violence by ex-husbands, vandalized vehicle with hateful words, harassment, and people growing marijuana in the fields they check. B) DENIED APPLICATIONS Out of the eighty-one applications over the nine month period, there were a total of fifty-two denied (64%). There were two denied who were noted to have possible paranoia issues. Overall, the denied applicants appeared to be good law-abiding citizens with reasonable justification and cause for requesting a CCW. Many listed "good causes" such as depositing or carrying large sums of money, business ownership, farming in remote areas, working at night, collecting rent, landlord evictions, hauling expensive equipment, and working/living in high crime areas. Many of the applicants were victims of crime, or had a circumstance and/or job that exposed them to a higher chance of becoming a victim of crime. 3) DETAILED COMPARISONS A. AGRICULTURE Out of the eighty-one applications, twenty-seven were involved in agriculture, and of these, nine applicants (33%) received a permit. A majority of applicants that were denied had similar cause and victim incident history as those who received permits. Approved (nine):
1. Male farmer: misdemeanor DUI and trespassing on record, with no victim history, for self-defense.
2. Male farmer: had a CCW in Stanislaus County, limited good cause information, with no victim history, for basic safety and self-protection.
3. Male dairy farmer: trespassers on property, stolen four-wheeler, carries money for purchasing calves, no victim history, wants protection for work. 71

4. Male, part-time farmer: owns rentals, undocumented burglary, carries cash, no documented victim history.
5. Five other male applicants were involved with agriculture in isolated areas, all with documented police reports of theft and vandalism. Out of the five, four were initially denied by the deputy, but the Sheriff attached a Post-It™ note requesting reconsideration. Denied (eighteen): 1. Eleven male applicants were involved in agriculture in isolated areas, working with orchards, hay, irrigation, dairy cows, and cattle. Most of them are ranch owners and many of them are employers. Due to the remote nature of their job, they travel a lot and work at night, usually carrying large sums of cash. Four of these cited crime or theft in the area, but had no police reports. Two had police reports documenting numerous thefts and break-ins at their livestock business. Their family member had been shot and killed at this business. None of these applicants had a criminal record.
2. Female Farmer: works and checks fields alone where no cell service is available. Has discovered marijuana grows in fields where working.
3. Male Farmer/Property Manager: owns over twenty properties, carries a lot of cash, family business where he occasionally works has been robbed.
4. Male Farmer: works late after dark, numerous thefts.
5. Male Rancher/Filmmaker: carries expensive equipment, has felt threatened, law enforcement letter of reference.
6. Male Farmer/Coach/Teacher: irrigates, witness to spousal abuse and assault, has been threatened multiple times which was reported to law enforcement, car was broken into.
7. Male Farmer: truck driver, limo driver, irrigates, multiple victim history reports, rental broken into, carries cash from limo bus, witness to attempted suicide and drug deal.
8. Dairy Farmer: six hundred acres to irrigate, carries cash for sale of calves, protection of life, law enforcement reference given. B) BUSINESS OWNER/PROPERTY OWNER Out of the eighty-one applications, thirteen were involved solely in business and property ownership, and of those, six (46%) received a permit. A majority of applicants who were denied had similar cause and victim incident history as those who received permits. 72 Approved (six):
1. Male: reviews properties that he owns, misdemeanor drinking in public, no victim incident history, self-defense.
2. Male: owns rentals and carries large sums of cash, victim of robbery, self-protection.
3. Male: retired military, owner of rentals in a bad neighborhood, carries money, no victim incident history.
4. Male: owner of gun shop, no victim incident history, guns and money.
5. Two other male applicants had businesses and had large sums of money. One of these had committed a misdemeanor. No victim incident history. Denied (seven): 1. Two applicants (husband and wife): own a business in a bad neighborhood, carry large sums of money, victim incident report documenting theft, and wife was a victim of domestic violence by an ex-husband.
2. Female Business Owner: works late after dark by herself, collects rent from rental properties, carries large sums of cash.
3. Male, Carpentry Business: witness to malicious mischief, carries thousands of dollars of equipment, works in less than desirable areas, protect property.
4. Male, Trucking Business Owner: carries large amounts of cash, has a home and shop with a lot of equipment.
5. Male, Machine Shop Owner: victim of theft multiple times, large sums of cash, self-employed, death threat, documented victim history.
6. Male, Truck Driver: burglary victim, property owner, checks on rentals, serves eviction notices, death threats, denied for insufficient cause. C) TIES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT/EMERGENCY SERVICES Out of the eighty-one applications, nine had ties to law enforcement and emergency services, and of those, three (33%) received a permit. Approved (three):
1. Female, wife of a law enforcement officer: threats had been made, worried about safety.
2. Male, ties to law enforcement: undocumented threats, carries money, worried about safety.
3. Male, Search and Rescue Member: no documented incident history. 73 Denied (six): 1. Two applicants were female dispatchers. One works for an out of county police department but lives in Merced County. She was advised to apply at her workplace, which is against the regulations of applying in the county that you live in. She commutes alone late at night, denied for "no qualifying incidents." The other dispatcher who is employed in Merced County was a victim of domestic violence by her ex-husband. She leaves work late at night and has been confronted by people yelling at her about their unhappiness with the department. She feels threatened, but was denied for having only basic safety concerns.
2. Male, Animal Control Officer: Marine veteran, contact with aggressive, angry, and dangerous people.
3. Male, Firefighter: works in remote areas, helps with family business doing twenty-four hour service at client based locations fixing equipment, sometimes in dangerous places, helps family on ranch irrigating.
4. Male, Retired Firefighter: no victim incident history, basic safety concerns.
5. Male, Paramedic: has equipment and drugs, deals with all kinds of different people while on the job (gangs, criminals), safety when out in field.

__________________Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.

Miranda vs. Arizona

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes...

D) JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE Out of the eighty-one applications, six were either involved with the judicial system, or their spouse was, and of those, all six received a permit. (PC§12050(c)(i)) E) MEDICAL Out of the eighty-one applications, four were involved in the medical field, and of those, one (25%) received a permit. A majority of applicants who were denied had similar cause and victim incident history as those who received permits. Approved (one):
1. Male, Dentist: writes prescriptions, no victim incident history, self-protection, was labeled as having "inadequate cause" by deputy; however, Sheriff approved. Sheriff wrote on Post-It™ note, "Deposits funds, and carries supplies, medical drugs." Denied (three): 1. Male, Doctor: second application, commutes to Fresno at all hours of the night, denied for "no qualifying incidents." 74

2. Female, Physician’s Assistant (P.A.): works in a "bad neighborhood," numerous threats from patients (who are drug abusers) because she refuses to write pain-killer prescriptions for them, prescription pad stolen from office, feels that her life is in danger, denied for "no qualifying incidents."
3. Male, Dentist: works in a "bad neighborhood," has large sums of money to carry to the bank, medications stored in office, denied for having "no documented incidents." F) MISCELLANEOUS OCCUPATIONS Out of the eighty-one applications, twenty-two were in unique and miscellaneous occupations, and of those, four (18%) received a permit. A majority of applicants who were denied had similar cause and victim incident history as those who received permits. Approved (four):
1. Male: victim of road rage once, occupation not noted.
2. Male: no victim incident history, protection of family.
3. Male: no qualifying victim incident history, protection of family.
4. Male: self-protection, declared by deputy to have insufficient cause and no qualifying incidents but was approved by the Sheriff. Denied (nineteen): 1. Female: travels for work, carries cash, undocumented incidents of theft and harassment.
2. Male, Software Engineer: self-defense.
3. Male, Utility Technician: home broken into, has four children, protect family.
4. Three male applicants are a handyman, a truck driver, and an insurance agent. The truck driver had a misdemeanor DUI and is on probation. The insurance agent had a misdemeanor. All three of these applicants only expressed basic safety concerns for just cause, but none had qualifying incidents.
5. Male, Business Manager: home theft victim, travels for work with high value items and confidential papers, a man pointed gun at him while he was catching up on work on side of the road.
6. Two males were believed to be paranoid or not of sound mind.
7. Male, Realtor: shows houses at night, no victim incident history, for basic safety. 75

8. Female, Church Secretary: does cash deposits, works in "bad neighborhood."
9. Male, Minister: cash deposits and house calls at all hours of day and night, works in "bad neighborhood."
10. Two Males, Retirees: one travels, for security.
11. Male, Unemployed: storage shed and tool shed broken into (undocumented), lives in rural area, no close neighbors, river runs by property, trespassers, has been confronted, has a driving on suspended license and wet reckless conviction, law enforcement reference given.
12. Male, Cell Phone Carrier Utility Technician: arrives at work locations in remote areas and finds them to have been burglarized (typically theft of copper), self-protection.
13. Male, Business Maintenance Manager: burglary victim, called in to work at all hours.
4. PERMITS FOR LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS It takes the Merced County Sheriff’s Department an average of twenty minutes to respond to 9-1-1 calls county-wide according to a Merced County of Associated Governments study done in 2008.22 22 Merced County Association of Governments, Atwater-Merced Expressway Project Report, http://www.mcagov.org/pdfs/2008/AME/DraftEIR/4.14_PublicServices.pdf Page 3 23 The Modesto Bee, Monday, April 22, 2013. http://www.modbee.com/2013/04/22/2682744/gun-owners-press-sheriff-to-speed.html?story_link=email_msg In the past, the Sheriff has declared smaller budgets as the reason to slow or halt the CCW program. In 2010, there were no permits issued for nine consecutive months. The reason given was financial. However, if Merced County has fewer officers due to budget constraints and more crime occurring in the county (FBI Crime Statistics, 2010-2011, 8% increase in Merced County), every effort should be made to allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.
According to the Modesto Bee23 Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson issued 1,250 permits in two years even though they had lost a quarter of their force due to budget cuts. This averages out to be 625 per year when Merced County issued twenty-nine in a nine month period. Sheriff Christianson has declared that he will give them to people of "good moral character" who present logical reasons. He was quoted as saying "that despite hundreds more people packing heat in these parts, there hasn't been a single case of anyone who has abused the system or the privilege." There have been instances in which citizens were able to protect themselves with their CCW. There are approximately 1,800 additional permits currently being processed. Sheriff Christianson has said he decided to grant more permits partly to help people defend themselves, due to 76 fewer deputies and more criminals on the streets since state officials began reducing prison populations a couple of years ago.
Many Merced County law-abiding citizens who were denied CCW permits had similar cause and incident history as those who received permits. FINDINGS F1. A majority of CCW applicants who were denied had similar cause and victim incident history as those who received permits. F2. A Sheriff’s Deputy is assigned to review all applications. The Sheriff, taking the deputy’s notes into consideration, makes the final decision on who receives and who is denied a CCW. F3. There were seven applicants granted a CCW who did not supply adequate "good cause" and "victim incident history." F4. There is higher crime and there are fewer officers in Merced County. Response time to 9-1-1 calls is lengthy in the county, leaving residents without protection for longer periods of time. RECOMMENDATIONS R1. and R2. The 2012-2013 Merced County Civil Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff’s Department review their procedures to ensure that approval and denial of applications are given an equal/fair process. The 2013-2014 Merced County Civil Grand Jury should review six months of CCW applications to ensure consistency in the permitting process. R3. The 2012-2013 Merced County Civil Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff’s Department review and reconsider all denied applications from July 16, 2012 through April 16, 2013 which had similar good cause and victim incident history as accepted applications. R4. The 2012-2013 Merced County Civil Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff grant CCWs to law-abiding citizens with good cause and reasonable justification. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to Penal code section 933.05, the grand jury requests a response. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. 77 ATTACHMENTS A) FBI Statistics for Merced County 2010
B) FBI Statistics for Merced County 2011 DISCLAIMER Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929).
This report was issued by the Grand Jury with the exception of three members who were recused due to a potential conflict of interest. Those jurors were excluded from all parts of the investigation, including deliberations and the making and acceptance of this report

__________________Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.

Miranda vs. Arizona

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes...

I was just informed today by the sheriff's office, that, as of July 1, 2013, if you live in an incorporated area that has it's own PD, that you will need to apply to the chief of police of that department first, and then, if denied, go through the sheriff's office. If you live in an area that does not have a PD, then you can apply directly to the sheriff's office. And to bring a copy if the denial letter with you to the sheriff.

Mods, maybe this post should start its own thread.....

__________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.

Just another way to make you spend more money. In Atwater, you could have threats in writing, pictures of the person pointing a gun at you, and you would still be denied.
If I recall, that was in the policy, for a time, in the last couple of years (while the lawsuit was in progress)

The best and most efficient way to fix the CCW issuance problems outlined in the Grand Jury Report is to elect a new sheriff who will be pro citizen-CCW. It's not an impossible task and has happened in other counties. The lawsuit, while not increasing approval rates because of the sheriff's discretion in granting good cause, did us some good; (1) No more doctor reports (2) No more 3 Personal References (3) No more refusals to accept applications.

The best and most efficient way to fix the CCW issuance problems outlined in the Grand Jury Report is to elect a new sheriff who will be pro citizen-CCW. It's not an impossible task and has happened in other counties.

It's easier to win a federal 2A case like Richards. But yeah, replacing asshats like Pazin would be a good start.

-Brandon

__________________Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

Ok. I just got my response from the Merced PD. they told me that they don't issue CCW and that I need to apply at the County Sheriffs Office.

Round and round we go. I will be calling the sheriffs office back later today.

__________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.

Sheriffs office told me that they need to decide what they're going to do so they're not going to take my application at this time. PD is not taking my application at this time. So at this point time there is no one taking CCW permit applications in Merced.

__________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.

So at this point time there is no one taking CCW permit applications in Merced.

Lets see if I have this right...

1) You are not allowed to open carry at all in California cities.
2) You are not allowed to concealed carry in Ca. without a permit.
3) Permits can only be issed by 2 authorities - police chief or S.O.
4) Neither authority is even entertaining the acceptance of applications therefore making ALL bearing of arms on the person illegal in their area of operations.

Conclusion - you have NO SECOND AMEND. RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS in Merced County whatsoever.

I wonder if any of the lawyers currently looking for discussion and argument fodder would be interested in using this contravention of the 2A rights of those who live in Merced County (and which were affirmed in Heller/McDonald) as a possible argument base in favor of a writ pettition regarding 'What does it mean to bear' that may come before the SCOTUS.

Have you brought this up in the main 2A forum?

__________________Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.

Miranda vs. Arizona

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes...

Does anyone think the upcoming mayoral election will have an impact on our CCW rights? It's my understanding that the police chief works directly for the mayor, so I'm guessing Stan Thurston is partly to blame for the current state of affairs.

It would only help one city. Chiefs DO work for the City Manager/City Council in many areas.

My opinion is that someone (maybe via courts) needs to bring pressure to bear on S. Pazin in a big way so that the county as a whole goes fully green (effective shall-issue). Merced County is a sore thumb that stands out in the valley as being one of the last vestiges that refuses to trust its citizens.

Perhaps Calguns can get involved and litigate things that would make this county come in line. After the valley is shall issue then its time to start hitting the hard counties.

__________________Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.

Miranda vs. Arizona

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes...

I just started a new thread for Merced County CCW to discuss the current CCW process.

__________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.

Hopefully his replacement will be better about giving ccw licenses to law abiding citizens who apply. I was worried we here in Merced County were going to be stuck with Pazin for the foreseeable future.

Hopefully his replacement will be better about giving ccw licenses to law abiding citizens who apply. I was worried we here in Merced County were going to be stuck with Pazin for the foreseeable future.

You guys had better get organized and active FAST because you can be sure Pazin will influence who replaces him. Remember, most sheriffs in CA are nothing but "politicians with badges & guns." Odds are Pazin will use his influence for personal political gain: to gain valuable IOUs for his future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoffmang

The policy now conforms very closely to state law. This doesn't fix "may issue" there, but it does mean that once may issue is dealt with in much higher courts, the rest of the policy is lawful.

-Gene

Not sure which you mean, Gene. Either it "is lawful," or it merely "conforms very closely to state law." Either way, regardless of what it was like when you posted that, they're currently requiring you get a letter of denial from your CoP before applying w/the sheriff.

If CGF wins Lu v. Baca (lawsuit saying sheriff can't req denial by CoP before accepting CCW app), you guys in Merced have got to get CGF to tell your SO to stop requiring it too. They have a big, red letter paragraph stating that requirement on their website at:http://www.co.merced.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=1918

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

Hopefully his replacement will be better about giving ccw licenses to law abiding citizens who apply. I was worried we here in Merced County were going to be stuck with Pazin for the foreseeable future.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Well, the Sun-Star has a column out already about a couple prospective candidates.

Anyone know either of them? I've only even met one, not enough to form a real impression though.

__________________
"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine."
-Erwin Rommel